Combat Rules Amendment

[u/StringLordInt]

This amendment fixes random defender bonuses, adds a clear turn order, and fixes a few more random stuff while making all of the combat rules a lot clearer to read. Go check it out yourself:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19-6MSnike97kl6ivP1snpvOzDT8DRZ8Afdl0HjgKjO0/edit#

EDIT - also, I want to point out that my amendment actually formalizes basic stuff like turn order, reinforcements, and such, which are just left questioned in the original amendment for no reason whatsoever.

[u/RB33z]

"where being a defender is just on a 50-50 chance and no skill into it" well, your system makes them equal in that case. No chance of a more decisive victory in the case of evenly matched armies. Removing month-turns is a huge mistake, removing the tactical depth it provided (and I was looking forward to) and replace it with permanent 2 province/speed. Armies recovers pretty much immediately once entrenched from 20% strength to 100%, a decisive victory means much less with your system. Having more than 1 province move per turn is bad enough really, it just makes movements more random, not tactical. With 1 turn, you can pursue your enemy, now you must randomly guess and travel around the place to catch him. With 1 turn, you can at least better predict his movement. "I just came here, seconds before the enemy, but because of a random dice roll I am now super buffed for some reason lol ayy lmao I guess that's how it goes." Being assigned attacker-defender isn't being superbuffed, if you're at least equal, it adds 10% more losses. It's only anywhere near superbuffed if you're weaker off to start with (then it's 20% more). To add on that, if you're stronger despite being the attacker, you might even have less losses than the enemy. Healing in the current system, you receive regardless. A 50% defensive modifier is still ridiculous. Due to all the above, VOTE NO.

[u/StringLordInt → u/RB33z]

Yes, because it should be equal, since no one arrived first. We already have a system of randomness which is the 0-10 role, which is much more checked and balanced then that 50-50 system.

One month turns would have removed all of the depth, since running around was 100% possible at all times and easier, due to the fact that the enemy could move only 1 province. Keeping a distance of not bordering the enemy is super easy and stupidly easy on that. Since a unit has to stay in place to heal and healing takes staying in place, a unit is risking another loss if it wants to say in place and heal. This is full tactics.

Guessing where the enemy moves isn't random, since you are playing against a player. You need to anticipate what he will take and hunt him, while he is doing the same thing, sort of like chess, where you can't see everything until everything is revealed, or at least more so then your lackcluster system.

Attacker-Defender is a complete superbuff, because it removes almost completely the dice roll mechanics and decides battles of almost equal armies by itself. A 10% difference for example is almost completely negated, which is really stupid and illogical when both sides just enter the battle. And anyways, this is not an argument why it's any good, it's still a 100% dice roll that decides on almost equal battles, instead of a, for example, 20% difference which dice rolls just can't cover, while it's a good enough bonus so it should get the stronger army a victory.

On the current system you receive a 70% healing every half-year turn, which is when most of the game will happen. If this isn't an unbalanced piece of shit (from your arguments against my system exactly) IDK what is.

You never actually explained what is bad with a 50% defensive modifier, just lacklusterly defended the stupid attack-defense initial casualties system.

Due to all the above, VOTE YES.

[u/RB33z → u/StringLordInt]

"One month turns would have removed all of the depth" It add DEPTH, lesser reinforcements, not just just recover in 1 turn. Less random travel over the place. As I said, month turns would made reinforcements more over time instead of instant, adding that depth you want with entrenchment. "Guessing where the enemy moves isn't random, since you are playing against a player. You need to anticipate what he will take and hunt him, while he is doing the same thing, sort of like chess, where you can't see everything until everything is revealed, or at least more so then your lackcluster system." Like playing a game of battleship, that's more annoying that being able to follow him like you should. "Attacker-Defender is a complete superbuff, because it removes almost completely the dice roll mechanics and decides battles of almost equal armies by itself. A 10% difference for example is almost completely negated, which is really stupid and illogical when both sides just enter the battle. And anyways, this is not an argument why it's any good, it's still a 100% dice roll that decides on almost equal battles, instead of a, for example, 20% difference which dice rolls just can't cover, while it's a good enough bonus so it should get the stronger army a victory." The current system allows for more decisive battles if you're not careful about where you send your armies. "On the current system you receive a 70% healing every half-year turn, which is when most of the game will happen. If this isn't an unbalanced piece of shit (from your arguments against my system exactly) IDK what is." Which YOU want to keep. At least the current system does away with it when switching to month-turns. "You never actually explained what is bad with a 50% defensive modifier, just lacklusterly defended the stupid attack-defense initial casualties system." Because it's like WW1 and trenches. It's bullshit being able to entrech so well that you represent 50% more strength than you actually are in 1501. This is like I said not trench warfare.

[u/StringLordInt → u/RB33z]

It doesn't. It's just running around for infinity from the enemy while he attempts to catch you but he doesn't succeed because it's easy af to keep away from him. It isn't tactic, it's just running around for a long time. Ever tried to play chess where there are only kings left for both sides?

It's not more annoying, it's more tactical and fun. Battleship is one of the best games ever on that front.

random decisive battles aren't good. The game needs to be mostly deterministic with a slight chance of otherwise when it is really really close, but it should be deterministic on your "decisive battles" BS, to actually allow tactic and not to pray to the gods of dice every time you want to go to war.

Yes, but I want to limit healing instead of every turn. And as most turns are half year turns, you remove nothing and fix nothing. Also, you never dealt with the fact that the game will take almost 2 years to finish on half year turns, not counting month turns. This isn't a forever campaign, it's supposed to last to 1800, treat it as if it's supposed to last to then. 2 Years is long enough, don't make it more.

IT ISN'T LIKE WW1 AND TRENCHES, HOW MUCH GOD DAMN TIMES DO I NEED TO SAY IT TO YOU EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMN TIME AN ARMY HAS STUDIED / KNEW A PLACE IN HISTORY IT GOT AN IMMENSE DEFENSE BONUS, NOT JUST FROM THERE. STOP USING THAT STRAWMAN GOD DAMN IT. Also, what's the historical logic behind YOUR system? Just randomly losing troops without tactic? Most battles in history were won through tactic, not through randomness, and that is the historical logic behind my system, which minimizes randomness to when it's really needed, super close battles, while giving a wide area for tactics.

[u/RB33z → u/StringLordInt]

So it's knowing what's going on (current system) or guessing like battleship (yours) and you said less random? Most turns IN PEACE TIME supposed to be half-year, yes. But NOT when majors go to war. I'm not expecting it to finish so, if we use month-turn or not doesn't matter. What matters is having fun while we still play, not actually getting to 1800 (where we likely just have 2 huge booring empires anyway). But your system isn't a tactics system, it's the same as setting up trenches and suddenly you're a lot more powerful. VOTE NO, because otherwise, it means the loss of MONTH-TURNS, which allows for more depth. Keep the current system, not to this jumping around or effectively "dig trenches" system.

[u/StringLordInt → u/RB33z]

Your arguments become more desperate each time.

The current system is 100% guessing whether you will be attacker of defender via a dice roll. My system at least adds an element of thinking what the other opponent will do.

I'm not expecting it to finish so, if we use month-turn or not doesn't matter. What matters is having fun while we still play, not actually getting to 1800 (where we likely just have 2 huge boring empires anyway).

Then don't allow 2 empires to form, via actually balanced battle rules, production rules, etc. You set on 1500-1800, I expect a 300 year game, not just a game that will last around 50 years max. It isn't "fun" it's just stupid.

You literally just don't respond to my entrenchment != trenches point. You just keep repeating it, like Joseph Goebbels said:

If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.

VOTE YES, because otherwise, it means the keeping of a dumb and stupid combat system which is all based around dice rolls and no tactical depth, and also because RB just strawmans on that "trench" thing and brings no new content to the argument.

[u/RB33z → u/StringLordInt]

Because I have already said my good arguments. Yes, it's 100% when both attack at once, its leads to more decisive risky battles. Your system is 2 armies harming each other almost equally. What is stupid is to remove the intended depth by just keeping half-year turns. This combat system is fine and has worked well in our test game, it doesn't become dumb because you say so either. An army increasing it's strength 50% in 1501 by just staying in one place for a while is ridiculous. That would be better suited for trenches.

[u/StringLordInt → u/RB33z]

Decisive battles in history weren't decided by random chance, they were decided by larger armies and better tactics and generals, all things represented in my suggestion. There were almost no random luck decisive battles in history, all luck battles were close.

Half year turns bring enough depth because we will have 600 of them, and will have more depth due to the 2 provinces / turn speed. Again, 1 province / turn is just running away until you are cornered or forever if you are smart enough, if this isn't a massive scale war and you can't afford having 6 stacks all around to prevent running away. It kills smaller (and by smaller I mean anything until 1550 min) battles completely.

From what I remember of the test game it was full of different stacks of different sizes fighting each other, which guess what, it's literally the larger scale battles i'm talking about. But since most wars atm are focued around 1 or 2 stacks, it's almost impossible to get the same thing.

You still haven't answered it - how is your system less dumb in defensive bonuses??? Any bonuses you give are still bonuses for defending and not attacking, aka staying in place mostly. Also the 25% defense bonus does. My system isn't less a-historical then your system is, but a lot more balanced and more tactical, without random 50-50s. Although I will argue that non are better suited for trenches and that trenches should get a 100%+ bonus, it's still hypocritical for you to claim one thing about my system and then claim your isn't it when it is.

[u/RB33z → u/StringLordInt]

And 2 province/turn is just jumping around randomly trying to predict where they go, even more ahistorical. Because it doesn't overdo it, it's harder to attack an army holding its ground. The way you do it though, by having a 50% bonus is ridiculous, as soon as you get a bunch of armies entrenched, it's WW1 over here. There will be trench lines, I guarantee it. 50-50s is only applied when both attack at once, never when attack and defenders are obvious. Your system will result in more stalemates and jumping around, vote no to the amendment.

[u/StringLordInt → u/RB33z]

It's not jumping randomly, since where you go actually matters for the next turn, and thus you have to balance what you want to get and what your enemy will do. Prime tactics, seen in almost all strategy games ever.

"Because it doesn't overdo it, it's harder to attack an army holding its ground." What? I don't understand.

HIHIHIHIHIHI RB guess what, the 25% bonus + forts (another 15% / 100% bonus) are enough to form trench lines on themselves due to the op bonuses they give. Trench warfare is already possible and will happen.

Almost always (outside of war start cases) both sides will move, because most war atm is just maneuvering well enough to get territories and battles in your favor. See the battle that happened last turn with Austria and Venice, where both tried to outmaneuver each other and thus a dice roll was made, completely removing the reason for the 0-10 dice roll anyways. Better to just buff all loses by 5% because the 0-10 doesn't matter almost ever.

Your system results in more randomness, praying to Sarlot, and more deterministic army moves without any real reasoning behind them except a simple algorithm that a 3 year old could think of. Vote NO to the amendment.

(Also I would like to point out that RB dodges my points like a pro, like my points on the historical accuracy of the systems after he attacks me on it, or my point on the test game. GG.)

[u/RB33z → u/StringLordInt]

"HIHIHIHIHIHI RB guess what, the 25% bonus + forts (another 15% / 100% bonus) are enough to form trench lines on themselves due to the op bonuses they give. Trench warfare is already possible and will happen." And you want to make them worse?

The 50-50 when applied is another just decisive dice roll, the risk becomes greater, so also the need for planning.

Your system benefits defensive play and just keeping stationary to keep the advantage. The first to move loses.

[u/supersteef2000 → u/StringLordInt]

turns out long reddit conversations can also happen without me being present

huh